Dismissed for association with church investors: a breakdown of trust case that backfired

This case shows how an employer's frustration with an employee's outside associations can lead to an unfair dismissal — and how a long history of insensitive comments can amount to unlawful harassment.

The claimant had worked for the care company since 2012, initially for a predecessor and then under TUPE. He was also a member of a Gospel church. In 2012, he had acted as a go-between for the company's director, Mr Kanda, and church investors in an investment agreement. Years later, when litigation with those investors ended in the company's favour, Mr Kanda decided to dismiss the claimant, citing a loss of trust because of his ongoing association with the church investors.

The tribunal accepted that a loss of trust can be a potentially fair reason for dismissal — known as 'some other substantial reason'. But it found that IAspire Care Services Ltd did not follow a fair process. There was no proper investigation, no formal meeting to put the concerns to the claimant, and no opportunity for him to respond. The dismissal was therefore unfair.

What the employer did wrong

The employer could have avoided this outcome by following basic procedural steps. A fair process would have included: putting the concerns in writing, holding a meeting to discuss them, allowing the claimant to explain his position, and considering alternatives to dismissal. Instead, the decision was made quickly and without any real engagement with the claimant.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had been subjected to harassment related to his religion. In 2016, Mr Kanda shouted at him in front of colleagues that he came in 'dead' on Mondays because of church, comparing him to an employee with an alcohol problem. Mr Kanda also routinely failed to greet the claimant while greeting others. These acts, together with the dismissal itself, were found to be unwanted conduct related to religion that violated the claimant's dignity.

Why this matters

For employees in similar situations, this case is a reminder that a long service record (here, 8 years) strengthens the expectation of fair treatment. It also shows that comments about religious observance — even if made years earlier — can be part of a pattern of harassment if they continue to affect the working environment.

For employers, the message is clear: even where there is a genuine breakdown of trust, you must still follow a fair procedure. Cutting corners to remove someone you no longer trust can end up costing far more than the effort of a proper process.